People Can’t Stop Talking About How Sarah Silverman Handled a Twitter Troll. (It’s a Master Class in Emotional Intelligence)

…Here are five key things to take away from Silverman’s response, that will help you to communicate with difficult people in any context.

1. She took a few minutes before replying.

Without having the self-control to pause before reacting, none of the rest of this would have been possible.

2. She took the time to learn the context.

Tim Ferriss says in his book, Tools of Titans: “Everyone is fighting a battle [and has fought battles] you know nothing about.”

Silverman seemed to realize this, which is why she took the time to look through Jamrozy’s feed. Besides learning about his physical pain, she also would have seen that he’s apparently using his real name on Twitter, and that he’d actually tweeted a very nice supportive message at her weeks earlier.

3. She decided to take a chance.

Of course, the safest thing to do might have been simply to ignore Jamrozy’s caustic … comment. It’s the internet; people might be crazy.

But deciding to reply is fully in line with the across-the-spectrum outreach Silverman has been doing recently. She deserves a lot of credit for it.

4. She offered love and understanding, and spoke his language.

Silverman’s tweet is something to be proud of. It’s authentic, empathetic, and personal. It’s the kind of thing you might write to a friend who needed some tough love, more than a total stranger. That’s perhaps why it worked.

5. She didn’t just drive-by.

One of the nicest things about this story is that it’s ongoing. As noted, Silverman didn’t just get into a short Twitter conversation and leave; she’s stayed involved, as Jamrozy has tried to get a handle on at least one of the underlying things that’s bothering him: his back issues. And it’s had an effect…

…”Giving someone effective feedback is one of the most difficult things for people to do well,” says executive coach and bestselling author Wendy Capland. For the past couple of years, I’ve been working with Capland as my coach and writing aboutwhat I’ve learned in the process…

1. Don’t do it too soon, or too late.

How soon after a problem arises should you give feedback? That depends in part on your own mental state, Capland says. “Some people–this is me–if it’s really loaded emotionally, it’s better to sleep on it overnight. It’s also helpful for me to write out the dialogue ahead of time so my emotions stay at bay and I can be as effective as I want to be.”

…You should probably wait no later than that, though. “The longer you wait, the less effective it will be because they won’t remember it to the same degree. It won’t be fresh in their minds.”

2. Ask permission first.

“Start by asking for permission to give the feedback,” she advises. “‘Could I share an observation?’ ‘Could we talk about what just happened in the meeting?'” You should ask permission, she says, even before giving feedback to someone who reports to you. “Otherwise they’re not open to hearing.”

What if you ask to give feedback and the other person says no? “You shut up,” Capland advises. “The reason you give feedback is to create behavior change. That’s the only reason. You cannot coach someone who is not coachable.”

3. Share your understanding of the situation and ask for theirs.

As the person initiating feedback, you go first, Capland says. “My understanding was we would have something by October 1. It’s now October 15, so I’m wondering what happened. Was that your understanding?”

It’s important, she adds, to be careful to avoid blaming the other person throughout the conversation. “My rule is that if it’s possible to put ‘…you idot!’ at the end of a phrase or a sentence, then you’re blaming,” she says.

4. Say how their behavior made you feel.

It’s important to include both elements, Capland says, not only how you felt but also the specific behavior that made you feel that way. “‘I didn’t feel supported in the meeting when so-and-so said X. You kept quiet and I thought we were in agreement that you would back me up…'”

5. Explain what consequences it had.

It’s important to tell others that their actions (or inactions) had consequences and exactly what those consequences are. “‘When you submitted the proposal past the deadline, it caused the following cascade of effects,’ or ‘We lost the discount we had with that vendor,’ or ‘My boss reamed me out.'” The other person may not be aware what the ramifications are of their behavior.

6. Ask how things will be different next time.

You probably know exactly what the other person must do to correct the problem in the future. But resist the temptation to say so at least at first, Capland advises. “Start by saying, ‘I’d like to have this be different next time,'” she suggests. “Before I say what I’d like to see, I ask them first: ‘How can you make sure we don’t get in this situation again? What will you do differently next time?'”

How to give feedback to someone who gets crazy defensive?… To get there, she can use a blueprint that pulls together three attributes of speaking well in tough moments: clear content, neutral tone, and temperate phrasing. (These are opposites to both skilled incompetence and confrontation.)

Clear content: …Imagine that you are a newscaster and that it’s important that people understand the information. If your counterpart distorts what you say, repeat it just as you said it the first time.

Neutral tone: …It’s hard to use a neutral tone when your emotions are running high. That’s why you need to practice it ahead of time, so you’re used to hearing it. Think of the classic neutrality of NASA communications in tough situations: “Houston, we have a problem.”

Temperate phrasing: There are lots of different ways to say what you have to say. Some are temperate; some baldly provoke your counterpart with loaded language. If your counterpart dismisses, resists, or throws back your words, he’s not likely to hold onto your content — so choose your words carefully…

Like this:

Commentary by Dr. Whitesel; “Emotional intelligence (EQ) indicates an ability to mature in the emotions that affect your leadership and management. Yet, research shows we are better at gauging others’ emotional intelligence than our own. And especially challenging is working with people who have low emotional intelligence. These are often people attracted to Christ and His church for the stability it offers. Learn the basics of emotional intelligence and how to improve yours (and your team’s) in this helpful overview in the Harvard Business Review. Here are the keys: be gentle, be explicit, be rational and don’t be offended.”

As an active church-revitalization consultant of 20+ years, I knew “church change” was understudied. This drove me to Fuller Seminary to earn my third degree there: a Ph.D. with a focus on church change. A resultant book, Preparing for Change Reaction: How To Introduce Change in Your Church, was awarded co-resource of the year by a national magazine. And, people often come up at conferences and tell me how helpful it is.

But people also come up and say,” What do I do now that I made a bad change?! How do I get out of that?!”

I realized leaders are often too stressed when everything is going wrong to find the answer in the book. So, I decided to set out in this article an overview of the “7 Steps to Recovering from Bad Change.”

Step 1: Take a breath. Once you realize a change is bad, your natural inclination is to rush in and halt the change … or plunge forward more earnestly. Both actions will usually doom the change, because you have “two emerging camps.” One camp we will call the change proponents and the other camp we will call the status quo.

On the one hand, change proponents (people pushing for the change) are excited about the change and stopping it abruptly will alienate them. And on the other hand the status quo (people who want to keep things the way they are) will step up their resistance if they feel you are ham-fistedly moving forward.

But, you may ask, “What’s wrong with alienating the status quo? They aren’t the future. Go ahead, let them leave.” That might be an option if they would actually leave, but research indicates the status quo will likely not leave the church. If change polarizes, research shows change proponents will leave, not the status quo. Then you are stuck with an angry status quo (not something many pastors can survive). So from the very beginning of this process, you have to figure out how to move forward while living with both the status quo and the change proponents.

So instead of stopping abruptly or driving forward, tell everyone you are going to talk to people about the change and take some time to pray about it. Tell them that though the change will continue, it will do so more slowly and you are praying to find consensus. This gives the status quo a chance to see you are aware things aren’t quite going well. The change proponents will also be pleased that you understand the change is causing division.

Step 2: Talk to the naysayers. Research confirms that you must go to those who are against the change and listen to them. Don’t act immediately on any of their suggestions, this is just a “fact finding” visit. People against the change usually just want to be heard. They care for the church too! They just want to ensure that your change does not take away something that is important to them.

Pastors seem to have a hard time with this step. In my consultative practice, it seems many pastors exhibit conflict-avoidance behavior. Unfortunately, this will usually doom a church into warring factions unless the pastor takes up the role of moderator: bringing disparate people together in mission.

Step 3: Bring together the status quo and the change proponents. The pastor can be the moderator, but must not appear to take sides (even if they have in the past). Again, research cited in the book shows that when two sides get together they can come up with a “hybrid-plan” that works for both sides and works better than a plan with input from only one side.

Step 4: Apologize for not getting more input. You are not apologizing for the change, but for the data gathering beforehand. Everyone could do more data gathering. But, maybe you are thinking, “Hey, I shouldn’t have to apologize. I’m the leader.” Or maybe even “Why should I apologize, it was their idea?” And yes, the change may have been thrust upon you or you may have felt that they hired you to bring about change. But, as Jim Collins found when researching why healthy companies fall, it is often because leaders develop hubris that they make bad decisions. Hubris means a pride and ambition based upon education, social status, professional status or experience. Collins found the best leaders are ready to say, “I may have made a misstep here.”

Step 5: Implement the hybrid-plan. This may be the easiest step. Still snags will develop. But, because you got the two sides talking to one another in Step 3, it is easier now to get them back together to work out challenges. A key here is that the pastor does not get between the two sides, or else both sides will take pot-shots at the pastor. Let them work out and adjust their hybrid plan together. You can be the coach, but for success they must be the players.

Step 6: Evaluate. This is a key step, that is often neglected. Evaluation adjusts strategies and increases impact. And, if you are going to adjust your strategies it is good to have both the status quo and change proponents doing the adjusting. So, just like in Steps 3 and 5, get together the two sides (after a month or so, sooner is better) and ask them to talk about what is working and what is not. Ask them to adjust their hybrid-plan.

Step 7: Bathe the whole process in prayer and listen to God. Both sides should be encouraged to pray, since the status quo and the change proponents, really in their hearts want the same thing: a church that is healthy and growing. Remember, when Jesus prayed for those that would follow Him down through history He prayed for our unity and for impact, praying “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:20-21)

Bio: Bob Whitesel is nationally-recognized church revitalization consultant, who holds a Ph.D. from Fuller Seminary on church change and has been called by a national magazine “the chief spokesperson on change theory in the church today.” In addition to consulting he serves as founding professor of Wesley Seminary at Indiana Wesleyan University and their professor of Missional Leadership.

You probably know from my book “Growth By Accident, Death by Planning” (2004, Abingdon Press, pp. 109-120) that because of God’s regenerating power, He can use anyone. Thus, we must not let appearances deter us. For example, answer the following three questions about the attached picture:

1. Can you take guess who the people are in the attached photograph (below)?

2. And, then tell me what you think your people would do if this group showed up on your ministry doorstep one day. Now, don’t just give a pat answer that “We would welcome them.” But rather be honest and tell how these people might really feel to your ministry leaders. Would they be looked at as experts? Or maybe your ministry leaders would feel then need some time to adjust and fit in before you utilized them. Then tell us why you think they would be treated this way, either accepted or ostracized. Then, share some steps you might undertake to build a team from them and from your existing ministry volunteers.

3. Finally, what might we potentially miss by failing to welcome in and build a ministry team from such unconventional and quirky folk?

I will give you some of the usual answers to chose from (in case you are stumped):

Now, one of my witty (and technologically talented) students sent me this attachment (below) which purports to show hidden meanings in the picture I attached above. I hope you enjoy his humor (I know I did 🙂

So, ask yourself. Will these people fit into your ministry culture? In many ministries they won’t. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have something to contribute. They do. And, while IBM dismissed these young people and thus missed catching the wave of the next revolution, you don’t want differences in culture to blind your ministry to building a team with people who are just culturally different.